ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 19.2.2011 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad by which the appeal filed by Ramashanker Singh was allowed and impugned order under appeal was set aside.
(2.) HEARD Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Ms. Zeba Islam Siddiqui, learned AGA for the State respondent and Shri A.S. Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.2. The brief facts of the case are that Ramashanker Singh was a tenant of 1st and 2nd floor of House No.73 E of the revisionist Ratnesh Jaiswal at the rate of Rs.2000/ per month and is living there, but he was in arrears of rent since June 2006. Ramashanker Singh in lieu of arrears of rent issued Cheque No.645820 of Allahabad, Collectorate Extension Counter A/C No.1721 for Rs.20,000/ in the name of the revisionist in his own hand writing and signature on 30.11.2007. However, the cheque was dishonoured for want of money in the said account, and on account of non matching of the signature with the specimen signatures kept in the bank. A notice by registered post and under certificate of posting was sent to the appellant through counsel Sri Somdutt Tripathi. The registered notice returned with the denial report. Despite this, Ramashanker Singh did not pay Rs.20,000/ to the revisionist, and he made forged signature on the cheque deceiving the landlord. The revisionist, in support of his complaint, has examined himself under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and Ram Bilas Jaiswal under Section 202 Cr.P.C., and filed original cheque in question, cheque deposit receipt, memo of objection, registry receipt and UPC receipt as documentary evidence. The accused stated in the court that he had not issued any cheque to the revisionist, and the case has been initiated against him on account of enmity. In order to prove his case, the revisionist examined himself as PW 1 and Brijesh Kumar as PW 2 and as documentary evidence he filed application paper no.13 Ba, objection dated 9.9.2009, copy of P.A. Case No.64 of 2008 and other papers. Ramashanker Singh was examined as D.W.1. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant denied the allegations made in the complaint, and stated that he has not issued any cheque to the revisionist, and there is no arrears of rent. The cheque has been taken by his wife by deceiving her and the witnesses are deposing falsely. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the evidence on record, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and sentenced him to undergo 1 year RI, and fine of Rs.30,000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month. Feeling aggrieved, criminal appeal was filed, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 19.2.2011 on the ground that complaint has been filed before expiry of fifteen days from receipt of notice, hence this criminal revision.
(3.) THE very question involved in this criminal revision is that as to whether cognizance can be taken on a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act prior to expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice, and whether non matching of signatures on cheque do constitute an offence of Section 138 of the Act.;